Bible Study KJV vs. NIV (& others)

[Imagican]

The caps represent what has been removed/changed in the NIV from the original KJV.

The KJV isn't the original. It is a translation of copies of the originals. As such, the KJV isn't authoritative, it can't be used as the measuring stick. You have to look at the manucripts, at the ancient copies of the originals in the original language, and when you do so you see that it is the KJV that added and/or mistranslated these verses---the NIV gets it right, the KJV has it wrong.

I beg to differ. It WAS the FIRST Bible authorized by a governing authority to be translated into the English language. There is NO DOUBT that it is utterly impossible to translate something 'perfectly' from any language to another. But the KJV was the FIRST Bible translated to English by a 'group' of scholars authorized by a governing authority, (King James I of England). Note that 'scholar/S' were used in the translation of the KJV. Previous to this Bible translation, others that had been translated into English were done by individuals and their helpers.

There is MUCH that has been altered and eliminated in the NIV. Much effort was made to offer the individual beliefs of those that wrote it. There is certainly a 'slant' to the NIV that IS NOT present in the KJV. Whether this is 'more accurate' or 'less' is certainly something that the individual has to decide for oneself.

I can say that the reason that 'some' things are more adamantly adhered to by those that read the NIV is that it takes on an 'attitude' that offers a more 'directed' approach to much that is a bit more vague in the KJV. The often 'open-endedness' of the KJV offers a MUCH more broad availability in understanding than the NIV, (in my opinion). By the condensing or dilution of some scripture in the NIV, it often directs understanding in 'only' one direction. Being much more broad, the KJV offers, at times, varied understandings of some of the same scripture. This often offers something that I would refer to as 'proof' of it's inspiration. The NIV in my opinion lacks the 'same' inspiration and therefore becomes 'suspect' to me.

And if the Bible IS the Word, the more accurate the translation, the more 'true' understanding we may obtain.

It's kind of like making a 'can of soup'; the directions call for the addition of 'one can' of water. When added, this one can dilutes the condensed contents to 'just the right' consistency. But, if one were to add 'three' cans of water, it would become so diluted that the end product would be 'mostly' water and the essence of it's taste would be altered to the point that it would 'no longer' be soup.

This 'effect' is what I believe invalidates many of our 'modern' translations.

 

[D46]

I think the bottom line to debates about bible versions is to read the facts, do your own research and check out the links I provided. The NIV is one of the top five worse bibles there is available. All modern versions have the backing of those same ol' corrupt "scholars" Westcott and Hort who weren't scholars in any way but rather, were unbelievers and Marian worshippers who questioned the very first book of the bible as to it's authenticity. Read about them. Plenty of info available. Their corrupt Greek text came from the satan inspired Aleph and B mss, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. No one has even seen these two mss except under glass with maybe a couple of pages showing. Rome made copies of them and who would trust them?

Check out the preface in you modern version to see who/what was behind the translation of the Old Testament. I have a NKJV from a copyright 1983 version that says...For the NKJV the text used (talking of the Old Testament) was the 1967/1977Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, based on the ben Asher text, while frequent comparisons were made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25. Etc, etc. Where did this Biblia Hebraica come from? Gehard Kittel, a Nazi under Adolph Hitler. He is the one that put together the Greek Dictionary that your pastor uses to tell you what the Greek words mean. How much faith would you put in that? The next page over says..."Readings labeled "NU" are from the modern eclectic or "critical" text, which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text." What are those Alexandrian "type of texts"? The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus! Corrupt mss written by ol' Gnostic heritic Origen himself and probably Clement as well. No one really knows where these two came from but no doubt Origen's hand was heavy upon it.

It's amazing to me that people have so many sources of iinformation to tell them where theeir bible came from and who was on the translation committee and the texts behind that translation and still fall for satan's trap by believing the have the word of God. God was NOT in the NIV nor any of the other modern translations. His word is NOT preserved as he promised in these Egyptian bibles!

Have you ever wondered why the modern bibles are much thinner that the old King James? That's because som much has been cut out of them not only in single words, but entire verses gone. In fact over 60,000 words have been deleted in the modern versions. Don't look for words like "mercy seat"...it's not there. Neither is Jehovah in the NIV...gone. Don't look for "Godhead" in the NIV either, you won't find it. Only and if only they have elected to go back and add some of the words or verses from one translation to another will you see those words. the Nestel/Aland text has gone from the 23rd edition to the 27th in recent years. How many more times will they revise it? That's why not all NIV's or NASB will all say the same thing. The King James has the same text in it today it had 100 years ago. It does not have a copyright like all the othersas it's in the Public Domain and can be copied in it's entirety if you desire. Not so with the others. You may only copy a certain amount and then have to get permission from the publishers. God's word doesn't have a copyright. In order to have a copyright you MUST change the words of the text. And, that they have done in these satanic masterpieces of modern bibles.

In the NIV's New Testament it zaps the word 'hell" about nine times. And, what's more clear and easy to understand-hell or hades. Everybody knows what hell is but not all know or have heard of "hades". Webster's Dictionary describes "hades" as "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY!!! So, the NIV has turned itself into mythology!!!

The NIV is a perversion of God's word in that it changes meaning, words and eliminates many verses found in the vast majority of mss. Moreover, Thomas Nelson lied when he said that the NKJV was just an "update" of the old language used in the King James bible. Much more was done besides that.It is a counterfeit of the real bible. It may bear a likeness to the real McCoy but, something else is coiled within the cover. I know-I have one and can readily compare those changes made. It too uses the "much easier to understand" word "hades". Changing obsolete words for better understanding? How about the 44 times it takes out the "obsolete" word, repent and replaces it with "relent". Clear as mud. The term "New Testament" is not in most NKJV bibles Neither is damned or damnation. They use condemn as does the NIV and NASB. Condemn is not near as serious as being damned.

A great example of being "in with modern times" in the NKJV is in Genesis 22:8 where Abraham exclaims that "...God will provide HIMSELF a lamb..." proclaiming Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. instead of the "...God will provide FOR himself a lamb" which destroys the promise.

Also, in Genesis 2:18 the NKJV is once again with the times and must make feminist smile as it reads, "And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM". The feminist of today would really love that one! What God said was, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (helper) for him. There's a period after him. As you can see, all these versions have twisted the scriptures for their own purposes.

 

[seb]

I am a strong believer in NIV onlyism. :-?

Reading any Bible except the NIV is dangerous. :roll:

I have read and studied the KJV only position from both sides (I have several KJV only books) and find the discussion divisive and pointless.

If someone likes the KJV, read the KJV.

But don't tell me I am not a Christian because I read the NAS, NIV, NCV, and other newer translations.

Just so you know the facts,

Many who are responsible for the changes in the bibles of NIV, NAS, RS, LB, NRS, NKJ and NCV did not believe that Jesus was God and even a few did not believe in God at all. Knowing this, we can see why they were quite willing to change the word of God. They all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, and His substitutionary death (which fully satisfy atonement). The new additions are marked by additions and subtractions. Also, some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions.

Well Seb...Just so you know the facts,

I am aware of your facts, But none of those omissions have taken anything away from my picture of the deity of Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Birth. You would find that my picture would not be any different than yours. And the NIV is the translation that I prefer to read. According to your expressed concerns I find that real strange.

As for the Atonement...That is what the old covenant provided through the blood of goats. (A covering that had to be repeated over and over again.) The blood of Jesus provides a better sacrifice. That offers us permanent reconciliation with God.

The caps represent what has been removed/changed in the NIV from the original KJV.
-

Luke 2:33
NIV[The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.]
KJV[And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.]

1 Peter 4:1
NIV[... Christ suffered ...]
KJV[... Christ suffered FOR US...]

Colossians 1:14
NIV[in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.]
KJV[In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins.]

Luke 11:2-4
NIV[Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come]
KJV[Our Father WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come]

and

NIV[...And lead us not into temptation]
KJV[...And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL]

Romans 13:9
NIV[The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet"...]
KJV[For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Thou shalt not covet...]

Matthew 5:44
NIV[But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,]
KJV[But I say unto you, Love your enemies, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you]

Matthew 6:13
NIV[And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.]
KJV[And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOREVER, AMEN.]

Matthew 17:21
NIV[ entire passage removed ]
KJV[HOWBEIT THIS GOETH NOT OUT BUT BY PRAYER AND FASTING.]

Matthew 18:11
NIV[ entire passage removed ]
KJV[FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.]-

Well Seb...Just so you know the facts,

I am aware of your facts,

And you have not posted anything that I was not aware of. If you are you attempting to get me to see it as you see it, give it up...It won't work. Because I also have read and studied the KJV only position from both sides and find the discussion divisive and pointless.

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

 

[Windozer]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom, but I have also read yours and it did not change anything. I am not buying your quilt trip.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Funny, I bet that is exactly what the Catholic Church says about Protestants in general.


If you think that your KJV is complete, you are mistaken.

 

[seb]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Funny, I bet that is exactly what the Catholic Church says about Protestants in general.


If you think that your KJV is complete, you are mistaken.

Catholics read Douay Reims.

KJV comes closest to complete.

 

[seb]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom, but I have also read yours and it did not change anything. I am not buying your quilt trip.

It's not "mine".

 

[Windozer]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom, but I have also read yours and it did not change anything. I am not buying your quilt trip.

It's not "mine".

I am sure you understood what was implied....I am not interested in arguing. So until next time have a nice day?

 

[Imagican]

Why get angry when faced with the 'truth'? I don't believe that anyone is 'forced' to read from any particular Bible. Nor is anyone forced to read Stephen King. Lot's of people do though. The difference is that Stephen King admits that what he writes is fiction.

If one doesn't care whether they read fiction or non-fiction, what's the difference?

The point is; the differences are easily researched. If the 'truth' doesn't matter, then why not just write your own Bible and leave out those parts that you don't like or feel differently about. The simple fact that most of our modern versions are copyrighted ought to say something as to the source and purpose that they were 're-written'. If not, it's not surprising, for Jim Jones was able to convince over nine hundred people to follow him to their deaths. Some people will not see the 'truth' for their eyes won't see what they 'can't' see, nor their hearts understand that which is hidden from them.

 

[seb]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom, but I have also read yours and it did not change anything. I am not buying your quilt trip.

It's not "mine".

I am sure you understood what was implied....I am not interested in arguing. So until next time have a nice day?

There are profound differences. I find it difficult to believe that you see otherwise, or choose to.

 

[friarbob]

I have just read through this thread. Well here's my thought on this issue. The method I use when reading the bible is this:

I consider myself a king James preferred but not a King James only. I read the King James until I find a passage that is clear as mud in the olde English ,then I use the NIV andNKJV for CLARIFICATION. The main reson I use the KJV is because my Strongs Exhaustive Concordance is referenced to rhe KJV.

SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL AS LONG AS YOU USE MUTIPLE TRANSLATIONS. tHIS ISSUE HAS CAUSED ENOUGH DIVISION IN THE CHURCH.

 

[Terral]

We Have A Variety Of Tools To Get Things Right

Hi Seb:

Seb >> I have a feeling this topic has been discussed before, but what do you guys read and believe is the true Bible?

Okay. I will bite. For years I used the KJV and the thing was just too laborious, cumbersome and difficult to read in the long run. The most difficult part was teaching the outdated English to others. After much deliberation I switched to Nelson’s New American Standard Bible from the Lockman Foundation scholars and find that much more accurate. However, the best resource on my desk is Nelson’s NKJV Greek Interlinear New Testament that allows me to look at the Greek and see where the major manuscripts differ. Both the Critical Text (NASB) and Received Text (KVJ) have scribal errors that must be reconciled by carefully examining both. There is no such thing as a perfect ‘English’ translation, because no perfect Greek manuscript exists. That is why we compare all the evidence and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us in the right directions. Those among us saying KJV ONLY or NIV ONLY are acting foolishly. I agree with many of the members on this thread that the NIV is the most altered and corrupt translation ever done by men, as somebody paid to create a version with an agenda.

Sticking with the Old King James over having the old concordance is not wise, but we should always work using the more accurate translations done within the past 100 years. The KJV was the best translation on earth for a couple hundred years, but people simply do not talk that way anymore. The key is to think in Hebrew for the Old Testament from right to left and in Greek within the New Testament from left to right. Always use the Hebrew and Greek definitions of the ancient languages from Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words or Strong’s Lexicon, which are often quite different from Webster. Which Bible to use is a matter of personal preference and one that should never divide members of the body of Christ.

My two cents,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[seb]

I'll buy that.

-

 

[Windozer]

Ok, if you want to read half a Bible, that's your choice.

Thank you for allowing me that freedom, but I have also read yours and it did not change anything. I am not buying your quilt trip.

It's not "mine".

I am sure you understood what was implied....I am not interested in arguing. So until next time have a nice day?

There are profound differences. I find it difficult to believe that you see otherwise, or choose to.

Well that...then is your problem to deal with. Good luck!!!

I said have a nice day!!!

And here is a big"SMILE" for you> :-D

 

[seb]

No need for attitude man...

 

[D46]

Some people will not see the 'truth' for their eyes won't see what they 'can't' see, nor their hearts understand that which is hidden from them.

Amen to that!! The Scriptures say it best about those with a closed mind and heart that have the truth before them and it goes right over their heads.

Isaiah 44:18 (KJV) They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Ephesians 4:18 (KJV) Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

Acts 28:26 (KJV) Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is a corrupt tree that brings forth no good fruit. Historically documented evidence exist about the mss and yet upon reading and hearing the truth about them people still refuse to see.

Matthew 7:18 (KJV) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

So called "scholars" have been corrupting the word even in Jesus' times...it has a long history. Satan began it all with the familiar question to Eve..."yea, hath God said..." The first one to question the word of God is still putting it in the hearts of men today.

2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Does it matter what you read? Yes, it does, and the new modern version have much taken away from them. Why is this? Because they have their roots from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which Westcott and Hort used for their "new" Greek translation that your modern version is made from.

Did you know that the Vaticanus omits ALL of Genesis 1:1 to 46:28? It also omits most of the Psalms, all of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, the last four and a half chapters of Hebrews and even more.

1 Timothy 2:5 reads: -

" For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." That sort of eliminates Mary doesn't it?

1 Timothy 3:2 reads: -

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

This shatters the teaching that claims celibacy for the clergy.

And what of Hebrews and the elimination of the last four and a half chapters?

Why would the Vatican highly prize a manuscript with such a deficiency? Significantly Vaticanus contains nothing after chapter 9:13. The omitted or excised portion!

Vs 14. Abolishes the Romish doctrine of penance. It exalts cleansing from sin by the "Blood of Christ" for the purging of the conscience, at the same time scorning the thought of "dead works" in their effort to quiet the conscience.

Vs 15. Abolishes the RomIsh teaching that makes each priest behave as if he were a mediator between God and man.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;..." 1 Timothy 2:5

Vs 22. States "Without shedding of blood is no remission." An unbloody sacrifice can not cleanse the stain of a single sin.

Vs 25. Teaches Christ is not often offered for sins.

Vs 26. "but now once in the end of the age, hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Vs 27. Slaughters the idea of purgatory, revealing it to be a figment of imagination without a shred of scriptural foundation for the teaching. "As it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment".

10:11-12 & 14. Another glorious attestation to the all sufficiency of the once for all sacrifice of our Lord. "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; ....For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

10:38. Re-iterates the great text of the Reformation that Luther preached so effectively that millions have ceased their vain efforts to be justified by works. "THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

11:32-40 "Shades of an ancient inquisition!" This is an awesome record of "man's inhumanity to man", so terrible that only the devil himself could have inspired such cruelty. The record is deleted from the Vatican manuscript, but not from the all seeing eyes of the righteous "Judge of all the earth".

I wondered just by whose authority were all these scriptures left out. Of course, considering their Egyptian roots and how they ended up in the Vatican is easy to see why they are so corrupt. Your modenr versions are made up of these two heretical documents that are never mentioned anywhere but in the footnotes as the "oldest and best mss". That''s what's been hidden from those that don't want to seek out the truth. Will you accept these "oldest and best" or "older and best authorities" as being genuinely concerned for your soul?

The main culprits are the depraved Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Beside these someone has delved deeply into the debris of old manuscripts, and has come up triumphantly clutching one more that omits the proper ending. They crown their efforts with these two Egyptian Versions, guilty of the same crime.
Evidence for the inclusion of the K.J.V. ending of Hebrews...

"Mss. A. B. (corrected), E, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, W, X, Delta, Lamba, Pl. All of the cursives, (possibly hundreds that contain Luke 4) the old Latin Vulgate (not Jerome's corrupt Latin Vulgate), Peshito, Philoxenian Syriac, Wilkin's Memphitic, the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic Versions."

Against this vast array of witnesses of integrity, the revisers have the two corpses of Vatican and Sinaiticus exhumed from their sleep of death and darkness, principally by the efforts of Westcott and Hort. Now these two feeble witnesses unable to stand alone are supported by equally feeble testimony. The whisper of their feeble voices, raised against the vast majority of manuscripts has been harkened to by so many revisers, while the thunderous Niagara of voices proclaiming the truth is ignored. This is the calamity of the new version movement. The result is a devastating falling away from the truth which is necessary before the world can be presented with "the man of sin".

A little something for the NIV aficiaonados.

http://www.nivexposed.faithweb.com/index.html

 

[seb]

Good post man.



-

 

[Terral]

We Agree That Whatever The Catholics Touch Is Corrupt

Hi D46:

Thank you for writing on this thread. Some of your statements against the newer translations appear to go off the deep end. Please allow me to point out some of those things. Your verses are being snipped, because they do not apply to your opinions about the current Greek manuscripts in the world today.

D46 >> (snip) The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is a corrupt tree that brings forth no good fruit. Historically documented evidence exist about the mss and yet upon reading and hearing the truth about them people still refuse to see.

Both of those works belong to the Roman Catholic Denomination and are utterly worthless like you say, but few outside their homegrown religion use them.

D46 >> (snip) So called "scholars" have been corrupting the word even in Jesus' times...it has a long history. Satan began it all with the familiar question to Eve..."yea, hath God said..." The first one to question the word of God is still putting it in the hearts of men today.

We disagree here. Your supposition is that even the Original Greek (Critical and Received Text) manuscripts have been corrupted by Satan. Let’s give Almighty God the ability to deliver His own mail to His children. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

D46 >> (snip) Does it matter what you read? Yes, it does, and the new modern version have much taken away from them. Why is this? Because they have their roots from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which Westcott and Hort used for their "new" Greek translation that your modern version is made from.

No sir. The Roman Catholic versions did not corrupt either the Antiochian Received Text or the Alexandrian version of the Critical Text from which our modern Translations are derived. The Majority Text represents what the majority of the manuscripts say, which is also unaffected by anything the Catholics have done to their version. Your attacks here appear to be against God for His inability to deliver us His personal mail.

D46 >> Did you know that the Vaticanus omits ALL of Genesis 1:1 to 46:28? It also omits most of the Psalms, all of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, the last four and a half chapters of Hebrews and even more.

What the Catholics do with their version is irrelevant.

D46 >> (snip) This shatters the teaching that claims celibacy for the clergy. And what of Hebrews and the elimination of the last four and a half chapters?

We agree, but your beef is against Roman Catholicism and not the combined work of hundreds of scholars working with either the Critical Text or the Received Text.

D46 >> Why would the Vatican highly prize a manuscript with such a deficiency? Significantly Vaticanus contains nothing after chapter 9:13. The omitted or excised portion!

Okay, but who cares? The fact that all of their dogma is errant and dead wrong affects nothing about my Nelson’s NKJV Greek/English Interlinear New Testament translation; ZERO. We agree that anything touched by the Roman Catholic Church is corrupt, but that affects nothing about the other Greek manuscripts at all.

Thank you again for writing,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[D46]

We disagree here. Your supposition is that even the Original Greek (Critical and Received Text) manuscripts have been corrupted by Satan. Let’s give Almighty God the ability to deliver His own mail to His children. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

No-you have read it wrong. There is a difference between the Critical Text and the Received Text (Majority or Byzantine Text). The Received Text is the word the people receilved (Textus Receptus) and is not corrupt in any way. On the other hand, the Critical was corrupted in that the Codex Alexandrianus and Vaticanus, Papyrus 75 were of the Alexandrian text and the Codex Sinaiticus (Western variety) was even worse in corruption. These are the texts that the "scholars' Westcott and Hort used to translate their Greek Text from which they produced the Revised Version of 1881 from which stems all modern revisions. The Textus Receptus and Byzantine text are not corrupt as the former are.

No sir. The Roman Catholic versions did not corrupt either the Antiochian Received Text or the Alexandrian version of the Critical Text from which our modern Translations are derived. The Majority Text represents what the majority of the manuscripts say, which is also unaffected by anything the Catholics have done to their version. Your attacks here appear to be against God for His inability to deliver us His personal mail.

You seem to be confusing two different types of texts here. The Received Text and the Critical Text are not the same. Your implication that the Critical Text is the text from which the modern versions are derived is very true. That's the point I'm trying to make. God promised to preserve His Word. Would he have done it in Egypt or Rome? The Alexandrian texts DO corrupt and have corrupted the modern versions as they were derived from the AT (Alexandrian Text) to include Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus. As mentioned before, these are the texts that the first modern day critics of Westcott and Hort used to permeate the current versions (except the King James) with a "cut apart" bible in which the deletions and changes are staggering. These critics hated the Textus Receptus and set out to destroy it's authority it held for over two hundred years at the point that they "corrected" it in the 19th Century- mutilating it. They are the fathers of modern textual criticism who have done more to alter the Word of God than anyone in modern times.The Authorized Version (Received Text) is the word of God without error in the English language. Westcott and Hort set out to destroy it and have done an admirable job in convincing everyone that they knew more than God about what he was trying to say.(Yea, hath God said...") They corrected God's word by destroying it and scholars, professors and ultimately consumers bit for it- hook, line and sinker. Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt, and yet in spite of these well-known corruptions, they are the basis for many new versions such as the New American Standard Version and the New International Version rendering these versions critically flawed and unreliable. See for yourself what was changed/deleted by W & H and compare to your own bible. I find it strange that these two lost the ability to articulate in the later part of their life, scarcely beiing able to speak above a whisper, but: they weren't the first to loose the ability to speak because of refusal to adhere to the word of God and disbelieved it.

Luke 1:20 (KJV) And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

See for yourself how W & H "cut apart the King James in order to put together a corrupted modern bible. Hort confessed that, "The pure Romish view seems to me nearer and more likely to lead to the truth than the evangelical". Don't think they were influenced by Aleph and B?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

It wasn't just used by Catholics to make their own bible. That started with Eusebius and Jerome who used Origen's flawed text to make up the Latin Vulgate.

What the Catholics do with their version is irrelevant.

Oh, but it is relevant in that most all modern version are derived from the same sources as the Douay-Rheims, NAB, etc...the critical text by Westcott and Hort-heretics and unbelievers who were into the occult and were staunch Marian devotees. Much can be found about these two just about anywhere so, no one needs to be ignorant about who they were and what they accomplished in tainting the true Word of God. They are the very one's behind modern versions, like it or not. God's best seller and final authority to an English speaking people always has been and always will be the King James Bible.

http://wayoflife.org/fbns/aremodern.htm

 

[D46]

A few more good links all from one source. There are many others. Here is just another of many quotes from Westcott and hort...

Westcott writes from France to his fiancee, 1847:

"After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the summit of a neighbouring hill … Fortunately we found the door open. It is very small, with one kneelingplace; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours."

Hort writes to Westcott, October 17, 1865:

"I have been persuaded for many years that Maryworship and 'Jesus'worship have very much in common in their causes and their results."

Hort writes to Westcott, September 23, 1864:

"I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and disillusion; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary." "Perfect Catholicity has been nowhere since the Reformation."

Hort writes to Westcott, October 15, 1860:

"Today's post brought also your letter … I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit … Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to his death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."


These are the guys who's Greek text scholars used to write your modern bible.


http://www.av1611.org/kjv/logsdon.html

http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/counterfeit.html

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html